I would like to argue that both Rousseau and Locke would justify and agree with Pateman’s argument with regard to the fact that their social contracts are fraternal social contracts. Moreover, I will also argue that Locke, with reason, would eventually agree that times have changed. Then I will argue that Rousseau would clash with the notions of feminism that exist today.

We should first begin with the definition of fraternal. Pateman states that the “contract is made by brothers, or a fraternity” (Pateman, 40). According to Pateman all the early writers on Social Contract theory were men. A few of these men include; Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Pateman then goes on to write that “it is no accident that fraternity appears historically hand in hand with liberty and equality, nor that it means exactly what it says: brotherhood” (Pateman, 40). It is evident that Pateman feels that this “brotherhood” is ingrained in everything to do with writings on liberty and equality. In her writing she states that Rousseau and Freud feel the “female body, subject to uncontrollable natural processes and passions deprives women of the reason and moral character which can be educated for civil society” (qtd. in Pateman, 44). That goes against the feminist mindset that “women possess the capacities we possess and can do what men can do” (Pateman, 44). According to Pateman, Locke defends the fraternal order when he “tells us that the strength and ability of the man (husband) is the natural basis of the wife’s subordination” (Pateman, 44). She goes on to explain that this subordination lead to the division into the 2 separate spheres. It was because of the 2 separate spheres that the education that women received could not be equal to men.

With regard to educating women by today’s standards Rousseau takes a bolder approach when he writes the following in Emile which is intended by the author to be a guide on how to educate children:

…Thus all the education of women must be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make oneself loved and honored by them, to raise them when they are young, to care for them when they are grown, to advise them, console them, make their life pleasant and sweet -- these are the duties of women at all times and what one ought to teach them from their childhood…
(Rousseau, “Emile” sec. 1279)

According to Rousseau it is the woman’s task in life to be submissive to men and do everything to make life bliss by being useful to them and to bring them honor. Moreover, the fact that he stated this implies it is how he believed we should raise our children. According to Pateman, Rousseau feels that the “sexes must be segregated to the greatest possible extent even in domestic life” (qtd. in Pateman, 45). She also points to Emile when she writes about how when Emile returned from learning about “politics and citizenship” (qtd. in Pateman, 45) he could “claim her body as a husband” (qtd. in Pateman, 45), in reference to Sophie who would be his new wife. That solidifies the fact that Rousseau felt men should dominate women.

When both Rousseau and Locke roamed the earth in an endless quest for knowledge, the philosophies of sexism and feminism were non-existent. Back then things were run and owned by men. While Locke does cite that God’s law states “children, Honour thy father and thy mother” (Locke, “Second Treatise” 30), in his writings it seems to go without saying that the mother’s authority only extends to the children when raising them. It is not clearly written that this is Locke’s opinion, however what is concisely laid out in his works is that authority concerning anything else belongs to the males.

Long ago, land was owned by men and only property owners could vote. While some states such as Wyoming had the right to vote as early as 1890, it was not until 1920 when the 19th amendment was passed that all women of age could vote in elections in the United States. It was not until 1928 in Britian that women were granted the right to vote on the same terms as men. In the United States we have not had a female president. While many other instances of oppression can be noted in our fraternal society, it is clear that the rights of women have blossomed and that women are viewed differently since the days of Locke and Rousseau.

If Locke were alive today he would see through reason that women can in fact be educated. Within a matter of time he would see women not only as professors but also women running cities such as Atlanta, as governors like in Michigan, and in the House and Senate. If Locke were to turn on the television today he would see Hilary Clinton running for President. On Google he would see that in Germany the female head of state is Chancellor Angela Merkel who was elected in 2005. While female heads of state are few and far between, they do exist. With regard to strength I am sure if he were to watch the Olympics or visit a prison and see a female guard he wouldn’t doubt that women have the ability to be strong. According to Locke “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything” (Locke, “Essay” 14). Locke subscribed to theories through reason and by today’s standards, he would see also through reason that women can lead and are equals.

Judging by Rousseau’s writings one could figure out that he has a domineering complex over women that he would be reluctant to give up. In Emile Rousseau’s true colors on the male chauvinist belief shine in the following:

Once this principle is established it follows that woman is specially made to please man. If man ought to please her in turn, the necessity is less urgent. His merit is in his power; he pleases because he is strong. This is not the law of love, I admit, but it is the law of nature, which is older than love itself.
(Rousseau, “Emile” sec. 1255)

This again solidifies the fact that Rousseau believes that women are made to make men happy and a man does not have to do the same for a woman in return. He is justified in doing this because he is dominant.

Rousseau’s life was a disconnected one with regard to love and his children. Accounts say that he had 5 children with his mistress Thérèse Lavasseur and gave them to an institution. It is also noted that this was used against him by Voltaire. When Rousseau wrote about children Voltaire argued that Rousseau just deserted his own children at an orphanage. Rousseau countered by saying that they would have gotten a better upbringing than what he could provide and that by giving them away they would not have to deal with high society. His love life with his mistress also seemed more like a convenience to himself than anything else. It was apparent that Rousseau did not think much of women and if one with a feminist viewpoint approached him if he were alive today, he would likely discredit her for being a woman, causing a clash between their two opposite perspectives. In my eyes the clash would be much like the popular movie character Borat walking into a feminist meeting.

Times have changed since Locke and Rousseau. Society has grown to accept and thrive with women in avenues of authority. In conclusion, if John Locke were still alive today, he would subscribe to reason when making decisions about the roles women should play in society. He would see what women have done for society and would likely sway to agree with feminist arguments. Rousseau on the other hand would discredit a feminist simply because she is a woman, and in his eyes, women are subservient to men.


Bibliography


Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government, C.B. Macpherson, editor (Hackett, 1980) ISBN 0915144867.

Locke, John. "John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Enlightenment: Objectivist Scholarship. 10 Apr 2008 .

Pateman, Carole, "The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory" Chapter 2, pp 33-57, (c) 1989 Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "Book V." Contents for Rousseau's Emile. Institute for Learning Technologies. 10 Apr 2008 .

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Donald Cress, trans. (Hackett, 1992) ISBN 0872201503.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, On the Social Contract, Donald Cress, trans. (Hackett, 1987) ISBN 087220068X.